or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Best way to attack North Korea
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best way to attack North Korea

post #1 of 109
Thread Starter 
If we go to war with North Korea, the main problem is the artillery batteries aimed a Seoul. I figure the best bet is a Neutron bomb/EMF pulse that takes out the telecommunications infrastructure, followed with a synchronized ground invasion from the south. If they can't order the destruction of Seoul, maybe we can take out the guns before they fire.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...k-north-korea/

Any other opinions on the best way to win?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #2 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

If we go to war with North Korea, the main problem is the artillery batteries aimed a Seoul. I figure the best bet is a Neutron bomb/EMF pulse that takes out the telecommunications infrastructure, followed with a synchronized ground invasion from the south. If they can't order the destruction of Seoul, maybe we can take out the guns before they fire.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...k-north-korea/

Any other opinions on the best way to win?

That sounds like a good strategy, only my concern would be that the North Korean forces could have a standing order to attack in the event of widespread communication failure.

Although the EMF could possibly also disable the firing/launch systems of their weapons, as well, couldn't it? I have a basic understanding of what an EMF does, but I admit I don't know how extensive the effects would be.

Of course, I am vehemently opposed to going to war at all without an official declaration from Congress.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #3 of 109
Thread Starter 
Well, Seoul is only a small distance from the border, if the EMF pulse is strong enough to take out the guns directly, you are going to have a lot of dead computers and cars south of the border.

I doubt that they have an "attack if the phones fail" plan - even with the .99999 reliability of the North American phone system, it would be a bad idea to do that.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #4 of 109
If NK (or rather lunatic Kim and his crazy government) is a genuine security threat to the region (as opposed to a bit of testosterone-induced bluster with the odd nuke test and missile launch), then perhaps the nations in that region should deal with it. Perhaps they should organize their own coalition of the willing, issue a "disarm or else" ultimatum, and go to war if as a last resort. I say the US should stay out of it this time around. We're already in two endless, major wars against countries on the far side of the globe, neither of which were a proven threat to US national security, and which have cost our tanking economy $1 trillion so far. We can't afford a 3rd simultaneous war, especially if it spreads and drags other countries in (no names). We've also proven ourselves a lousy, godawful global policeman for the last few decades... so lets stop digging that hole any deeper.

If we lay off this time around, maybe we may gain a little bit of respect and regain some friendships (perhaps even make some, yikes what a concept), after the last 8 years debacle. But maybe we're so addicted to conflict that the powers-that-be won't be able to resist another fight.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #5 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

... I say the US should stay out of it this time around. ...

Of course that makes absolutely no sense at all.

The US has been heavily involved in that region since we entered WWII. Since the end of the Korean war the US has had troops in Korea and Japan and been negotiating with come up with a solution. But then this time around we tell our allies that we're not going to participate. We tell North Korea that "sure we a have a standing army outside your door but go talk to the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese" We're going to be isolationists this time around. And then when that doesn't work and we want to help again what reaction do you think we'll get?

We're told be multilateral until Bush does that and then we should be unilateral but now it's isolationist.
post #6 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

If we go to war with North Korea, the main problem is the artillery batteries aimed a Seoul. I figure the best bet is a Neutron bomb/EMF pulse that takes out the telecommunications infrastructure, followed with a synchronized ground invasion from the south. If they can't order the destruction of Seoul, maybe we can take out the guns before they fire.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...k-north-korea/

Any other opinions on the best way to win?

Too bad all the ERW weapons have left our inventory. And it is EMP not EMF. A high altitude nuclear weapon to generate EMP that would affect NK would also affect SK and China and even a "low" altitude EMP attack (30mi) has a 500 mi radius.

Given that EMP attacks (in the northern hemisphere anyway) work toward the south the C4I disruption would largely be on OUR troops. Not the NK ones. Even if the peak pulse area was centered on the NK forces. They aren't what you call a highly equipped, modern force with BFT, UAVs and scads of computers scattered in all of their equipment.

If anything the NK would like to start with a EMP attack if they didn't think we'd nuke them into the stone age in response. Or that China wouldn't come down on them like a ton of bricks. But it sure would screw us up a lot. A heck of a lot more than them.

And we don't have the troops required to attack from the south anyway given that the bulk of our forces are already committed to the middle east and would take a freaking long time to get to NK with heavy equipment.

The "best" way to attack NK is politically. Through China. Jeez.
post #7 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

The "best" way to attack NK is politically. Through China. Jeez.

The next best is via continued economic sanctions. They're obviously working and if the US could get China on board, it would certainly discourage NK's nuclear ambitions.

Although there are interesting alternatives...
Quote:
They say the best weapon is one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only need to fire once. That's how dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far.

post #8 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

If NK (or rather lunatic Kim and his crazy government) is a genuine security threat to the region (as opposed to a bit of testosterone-induced bluster with the odd nuke test and missile launch), then perhaps the nations in that region should deal with it.

They are. By defensive treaty with the US or by being the NK supporter (China).

Quote:
Perhaps they should organize their own coalition of the willing, issue a "disarm or else" ultimatum, and go to war if as a last resort.

Not possible for anyone but China.

Quote:
If we lay off this time around, maybe we may gain a little bit of respect and regain some friendships (perhaps even make some, yikes what a concept), after the last 8 years debacle. But maybe we're so addicted to conflict that the powers-that-be won't be able to resist another fight.

Yes, we will make new friends by leaving our current friends (SK and Japan) out to dry.

The current course is the correct one. Defend our allies and put pressure on NK politically to stop being a pain in the ass.

We have one powerful chip that neither the US or China is willing to use yet. Taiwan. China knows that we'll trade peaceful unification of Taiwan for them dealing with NK. But politically and socially the island isn't quite ready for peaceful unification and forced unification is just bad for everyone involved.

So China lets NK become even more of a pain in the ass to make this payout seem all the more worthwhile. But don't believe for a second that they wouldn't trade NK for SK as a partner in a heartbeat. Heck if Korea was unified under SK it would be better for China given that we'd have a lot less pretext to be in Asia anymore and they'd have a country that going to be nice to them if they helped at a peaceful unification.

Kim Jong Il isn't stupid either. He knows that eventually China will throw him under the bus despite his current amusement factor for Beijing. But he knows he's screwed because the only way to change that equation is to modernize his economy and ideology more toward what China has become. Except he can't and won't.

Obama has played this fairly well so far I think. Not overreacting. No concessions. Mild military response (ooh, we raised the alert level). He's treating Il as a kid throwing a tantrum and letting Beijing know that we don't intend to jump up and down for their entertainment.
post #9 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

If we go to war with North Korea, the main problem is the artillery batteries aimed a Seoul. I figure the best bet is a Neutron bomb/EMF pulse that takes out the telecommunications infrastructure, followed with a synchronized ground invasion from the south. If they can't order the destruction of Seoul, maybe we can take out the guns before they fire.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...k-north-korea/

Any other opinions on the best way to win?

WHO'S THE REAL TERRORIST?

This and the Africa thread. Sheesh, talk about racism!
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #10 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

The next best is via continued economic sanctions. They're obviously working and if the US could get China on board, it would certainly discourage NK's nuclear ambitions.

How are they "obviously working"? Are you being sarcastic?
post #11 of 109
Under no circumstances should the US get involved militarily with North Korea, barring a desperate attack on the US itself. China will cool their jets soon enough.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #12 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

WHO'S THE REAL TERRORIST?

This and the Africa thread. Sheesh, talk about racism!

I wanted us to attack Africa in order to unite it into a single superpower - it is hardly racist to want black people to have more power in the world, which they would have if they ran a superpower.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #13 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Under no circumstances should the US get involved militarily with North Korea, barring a desperate attack on the US itself. China will cool their jets soon enough.

I'm inclined to agree. Look where these concepts of "preemptive war" and policing the world have brought us. The Founders were vehemently against us getting entangled in the affairs of other nations. I feel we should only go to war if we are attacked directly, and even then, only by an official declaration from congress.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #14 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm inclined to agree. Look where these concepts of "preemptive war" and policing the world have brought us. The Founders were vehemently against us getting entangled in the affairs of other nations. I feel we should only go to war if we are attacked directly, and even then, only by an official declaration from congress.

But when the founders were around, you didn't need to worry about countries on the other side of the globe if you didn't want to. Now we have an insane leader making progressively better nuclear weapons each year, when do we start worrying about that? When they have one small enough for a missile? A suitcase?

I wonder why China has not solved this problem already, they will soon be rich enough to care about nuclear terrorism as much as we do. Maybe they are too busy growing their GDP to worry about NK, or maybe they think that we will do the work for them.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #15 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I wanted us to attack Africa in order to unite it into a single superpower - it is hardly racist to want black people to have more power in the world, which they would have if they ran a superpower.

You wanted Africa to become a hell hole. Re- read what you wrote!

This is what you wrote-

"That is why I think we need to invade - those countries are not likely to combine unless we shred the fabric of their society, and turn them into a mad max style hellscape. All of Africa needs to be reduced to rubble, and a new society with a new identity needs to form from the ashes."

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...ghlight=Africa
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #16 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You wanted Africa to become a hell hole. Re- read what you wrote!

This is what you wrote-

"That is why I think we need to invade - those countries are not likely to combine unless we shred the fabric of their society, and turn them into a mad max style hellscape. All of Africa needs to be reduced to rubble, and a new society with a new identity needs to form from the ashes."

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...ghlight=Africa

I may not agree with his statement, but I don't see how it's racist.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #17 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You wanted Africa to become a hell hole. Re- read what you wrote!

Which I think is necessary for the survival of the human race. It has nothing to do with the color of the people that live there - it has to do with the danger that small countries pose in a future where everybody has nuclear weapons. I am prejudiced against small countries and tribal connections that prevent large countries from forming, not against any particular race - it isn't racism.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #18 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

But when the founders were around, you didn't need to worry about countries on the other side of the globe if you didn't want to. Now we have an insane leader making progressively better nuclear weapons each year, when do we start worrying about that? When they have one small enough for a missile? A suitcase?

I wonder why China has not solved this problem already, they will soon be rich enough to care about nuclear terrorism as much as we do. Maybe they are too busy growing their GDP to worry about NK, or maybe they think that we will do the work for them.

They haven't attacked us.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #19 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Which I think is necessary for the survival of the human race. It has nothing to do with the color of the people that live there - it has to do with the danger that small countries pose in a future where everybody has nuclear weapons. I am prejudiced against small countries and tribal connections that prevent large countries from forming, not against any particular race - it isn't racism.

Just callous?

And by the way those countries are uniting already without being invaded and blown to smithereens. SHEESH!!!
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #20 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

They haven't attacked us.

They have threatened our allies in an attempt to extort money from us, which is a form of attack. They fired missiles over Japan...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #21 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Just callous?

Just the rational conclusion of what has to happen, if we fail to develop nuclear fusion in time.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #22 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

But when the founders were around, you didn't need to worry about countries on the other side of the globe if you didn't want to. Now we have an insane leader making progressively better nuclear weapons each year, when do we start worrying about that? When they have one small enough for a missile? A suitcase?

I wonder why China has not solved this problem already, they will soon be rich enough to care about nuclear terrorism as much as we do. Maybe they are too busy growing their GDP to worry about NK, or maybe they think that we will do the work for them.

Kim Jong Il is a kook, but he doesn't have a death wish (AFAIK). He pushes out these threats via his military mouthpieces regularly. Just because he's fired off some missles and tested some nukes does not mean there is an imminent attack on another country planned. They are all show.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #23 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

And by the way those countries are uniting already without being invaded and blown to smithereens. SHEESH!!!

All the better, costs less, same result. Link?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #24 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

They have threatened our allies in an attempt to extort money from us, which is a form of attack. They fired missiles over Japan...

The fired missiles, but they didn't strike Japan. If and when they foolishly attack a neighboring country (S. Korea or Japan), they will be dealt with severely by either of those countries or China. Guaranteed.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #25 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Kim Jong Il is a kook, but he doesn't have a death wish (AFAIK). He pushes out these threats via his military mouthpieces regularly. Just because he's fired off some missles and tested some nukes does not mean there is an imminent attack on another country planned. They are all show.

They are all for show as long as we pay up. If we fail to provide aid, and his people's poverty deepens, things will escalate. At some point, he will need to go to war with somebody just to distract the proles from rebellion, and the only somebody handy is South Korea. How sure are we that China would go to the aid of SK? The best bet for China and Japan cost-wise is to let the war play out and step in after it cools down.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #26 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

They have threatened our allies in an attempt to extort money from us, which is a form of attack. They fired missiles over Japan...

They haven't attacked us militarily.

Have you considered they might be trying to provoke the U.S. or other nations into preemptive strikes? Have you considered that countries like Iran or even Russia might be waiting for us to make the first move to use that as justification to move forward with their own military agendas?

It's time for us to get out of these "entangling alliances" that have gotten us into these messes ever since WWII.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #27 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

All the better, costs less, same result. Link?

Cost less?!!

Africa is uniting, no doubt you would want to turn that continent into a bloodbath anyway, as I doubt whether you would find their level of integration quick enough for you.

ECOWAS http://www.ecowas.int/ They have monetary union

There are other countries wanting to unite too.

I suggest you do some of your own research, considering how dangerous you think they are.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #28 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Africa is uniting, no doubt you would want to turn that continent into a bloodbath anyway

I think that the imaginary e1618978 in your head is different from the actual me. The bloodbath was a means to an end, not the end itself, I would prefer that it didn't happen. We need sub-Saharan Africa to be a single superpower 15 or so years from now, however we get there is fine.

I also want South America to merge into a single (probably socialist) state, which will take violence probably.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #29 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It's time for us to get out of these "entangling alliances" that have gotten us into these messes ever since WWII.

How small do NK's nuclear weapons need to get before you start to worry? If NK attacks first, it would be a lot worse than if they are attacked first - why would we isolate ourselves when events in the rest of the world could have such a profound effect here? Think of the worldwide recession a new Korean war could cause...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #30 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I think that the imaginary e1618978 in your head is different from the actual me. The bloodbath was a means to an end, not the end itself, I would prefer that it didn't happen. We need sub-Saharan Africa to be a single superpower 15 or so years from now, however we get there is fine.

I also want South America to merge into a single (probably socialist) state, which will take violence probably.

Trade. There's The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) which include Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. Brazilian President Inacio Luca da Silva said they (UNASUR) would seek a common currency and central bank, aimed at boosting economic and political integration in the region.
~established 2008

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=97467
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #31 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

How small do NK's nuclear weapons need to get before you start to worry? If NK attacks first, it would be a lot worse than if they are attacked first - why would we isolate ourselves when events in the rest of the world could have such a profound effect here? Think of the worldwide recession a new Korean war could cause...

Oh I never said I'm not worried.

We are already in a worldwide recession, we've got a military presence all across the world, our resources are already spread thin and we're already spending billions on an illegal, immoral war. A "preemptive strike" on NK is not going to change that. Indeed, it will probably serve to provoke our enemies elsewhere and throw us into a larger scale conflict.

Going to war with another nation because we think they might possibly do something to us or another country we like is not a good enough reason. Then WE become the aggressors. WE become the empire builders. WE become the intimidators. WE become the instigators.

NK has not attacked anyone. They've fired some missiles and spewed a bunch of propaganda and rhetoric.

Granted, none of us really knows the full details of the situation or what their true intentions are.

But in places where the rule of law exists, beating someone up because he calls you names, makes intimidating gestures, and throws rocks in a nearby pond will probably get you in more trouble than him.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #32 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I think that the imaginary e1618978 in your head is different from the actual me. The bloodbath was a means to an end, not the end itself, I would prefer that it didn't happen. We need sub-Saharan Africa to be a single superpower 15 or so years from now, however we get there is fine.

I also want South America to merge into a single (probably socialist) state, which will take violence probably.

I can't help but think any assertion to the effect of "the ends justify the means" would give someone pause.

Is that an accurate assessment of your position on this?
post #33 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I can't help but think any assertion to the effect of "the ends justify the means" would give someone pause.

Is that an accurate assessment of your position on this?

"However we get there is fine, preferably with the least expense and loss of life".

The reason that I think that the ends justify the means, is that I don't think that the human technological civilization we live in can survive if small countries continue to exist (well, Monaco and the Vatican can continue to exist, but Somalia can't). If our civilization fails, we basically have to wait in stone age societies until the continents roll over via subduction before we get easily accessible metals again.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #34 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

But in places where the rule of law exists, beating someone up because he calls you names, makes intimidating gestures, and throws rocks in a nearby pond will probably get you in more trouble than him.

That isn't a good analogy. He isn't just calling you names, he is shooting bullets into your neighbors yard, and kidnapping his kids.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #35 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Kim Jong Il is a kook, but he doesn't have a death wish (AFAIK). He pushes out these threats via his military mouthpieces regularly. Just because he's fired off some missles and tested some nukes does not mean there is an imminent attack on another country planned. They are all show.

I guess you're willing to bet other peoples' lives on that.
post #36 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

That isn't a good analogy. He isn't just calling you names, he is shooting bullets into your neighbors yard, and kidnapping his kids.

You'd still get in trouble for beating him up. You didn't do it in self denfense and you had no right to do it. You'd be considered a vigilante.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #37 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You'd still get in trouble for beating him up. You didn't do it in self denfense and you had no right to do it. You'd be considered a vigilante.

Who are the neighborhood police in your analogy?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #38 of 109
This discussion has become inane.
post #39 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

This discussion has become inane.

That comment makes you the neighbourhood cop!

I'm still here
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #40 of 109
Thread Starter 
Not really - the meta discussion has really become "Does the US have the need/right to keep its current position as the policeman of the world? And it so, should we use preemptive attacks to reduce the costs of inevitable war?"

If the answer turns out to be "yes, and yes", then we return to our original discussion about the best way to attack North Korea, since they sure need attacking IMHO. I think that we need to be the world's policeman, because otherwise we get drug in later when the costs are higher like in WWII.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Best way to attack North Korea